VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Only thing I can think of would be if Caicedo(?) was blocking the view of the keeper.
Somehow only VAR can spend 3 minutes on a 4-0 goal for Chelsea that wont make any difference to the match in total.
Var kills another goal celebration... Why so long...
https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/is-var-being-used-in-the-fa-cup-third-round-yes-for-some-teams-and-no-for-others/a96502933.html
Only being used at PL grounds in the Cup
Either only use it a Wembley like the League Cup or don't use it at all
How is that fair?
Yeah, different matches in the same round of the same competition on the same day using different rules is mental.
This would after the header, then?
Yea, when Silva headed it towards goal.
The onfield ref saw this challenge right in front of him and somehow thought it was only a yellow card offence, luckilly VAR intervened.
It's a minor game for sure but I was watching the FA Cup today between Shrewsbury Town and Wrexham. Mullin of Wrexham lunges in for a ball and ends up catching the Shrewsbury goalkeeper after he had gathered in the ball. It looked a straight red: studs up, high contact, reckless lunge.
But the referee doesn't take any action against Mullin and instead books James McLean and a Shrewsbury player for presumably arguing their respective cases, even though there was a huge melee of players and you could presumably book twelve players for the same offence.
This is the point I wanted to make: refs constantly bottle a huge, game-swinging decision and then try to cover it up by awarding two yellow cards as a way of saying, 'a plague on both your houses'. It's just weak refereeing though and it usually helps cover up a foul that should have been punished.
Nothing worse than those, let's-settle-this-by-giving-both-sides-the-same-punishment decisions when one side was clearly in the wrong.
But the referee doesn't take any action against Mullin and instead books James McLean and a Shrewsbury player for presumably arguing their respective cases, even though there was a huge melee of players and you could presumably book twelve players for the same offence.
This is the point I wanted to make: refs constantly bottle a huge, game-swinging decision and then try to cover it up by awarding two yellow cards as a way of saying, 'a plague on both your houses'. It's just weak refereeing though and it usually helps cover up a foul that should have been punished.
Nothing worse than those, let's-settle-this-by-giving-both-sides-the-same-punishment decisions when one side was clearly in the wrong.
Serious questions about what Michael Oliver did to Dalot at Anfield needed. The amount of dissent ive seen in this Arsenal/Liverpool game alone makes a mockery of that stance.
Dissent FC vs FC Dissent in the FA Cup now. No yellow cards.
How that Dalot rule is being applied today. We know how we aret treated with all those rules.
How that Dalot rule is being applied today. We know how we aret treated with all those rules.
michael oliver is a dweeb. it’s as simple as that.
It is not only that game. We've seen so many decisions like that going against us. Dissent pretty much every game. We are not allowed to talk or to point or to even look at referees. We all know decisions against us. Our club have still not come with any official statement.
Odegaard's shows dissent with tantrums and arm swinging. No yellow.
Elliot does it once. Yellow. Zero consistency.
Elliot does it once. Yellow. Zero consistency.
The Forest guy against us was the biggest joke.
Half kicks out against McTom, then fouls him, then lunges in on Evans, then does what can only be described as a rabid coke eyes dissent rant.
Yet for 4 offences gets 1 yellow.
Then Dalot gets a yellow for politely pointing this out
I thought the ref in that Arsenal game was pretty good to be fair.
State of this. Premier League refs deserve zero respect. They are a blight on the game.
I honestly think, unless you're going up to the ref and calling him a f***ing c*** there should really be no bookings for dissent.
Footballers are humans and showing emotion shouldn't be seen as a negative. Obviously kicking the ball away and stuff is different as thats time wasting. But being frustrated at a decision? Come on now.
Footballers are humans and showing emotion shouldn't be seen as a negative. Obviously kicking the ball away and stuff is different as thats time wasting. But being frustrated at a decision? Come on now.
Nonsense. They should be expected to act like adults. Rugby players are able to do it, same with Tennis players and plenty of other sports.
Why should footballers get special dispensation to act like children, screaming swear words, flapping their arms all over the place?
You should probably watch more Tennis then!
Also, adults all over the world on a regular basis lose their shit over the most mundane things. So when it's something as emotionally charged as a game of football I don't really see why it's an issue? We've all played football and know how easy it is to get annoyed when a decision doesn't go your way. Abuse of the officials is one thing - and absolutely shouldn't be tolerated... but I mean throwing your arms up at a decision? If anything you'd expect the refs to be adults in the situation and not really be offended/bothered by it.
It's obviously difficult to turn things around considering how long it's generally been accepted to react to decisions, and the referees aren't exactly making things easier considering how the new rules are mor ore less randomly applied.
Personally i don't really see the big issue with responding in the heat of the moment, obviously to a certain extent, and as long as you're not shouting insults etc i think it's fair game to disagree with decisions. The rules however say something else, so at least apply consistency.
As usual, I sit somewhere in the middle of a debate.
I certainly think players feel 'free' to do it to such an extent because it's in the culture of the sport and there's an attitude of 'us v them' about players, managers, fans v refs. And that could be improved more on the more professional level of managers, players and refs.
However, I also think too much is made of it because of all this stuff being pushed in the media that football players are 'role models', and have a duty to act and speak in a way that positively influences kids, etc. When, really, they are just competitive sports stars playing in a highly emotional, contact sport, often with big money on the line. It's understandable that they show emotion and react to situations, like everyone just watching the game is, let alone those directly involved in it.
So while I think an eye should be kept on it, and the officials are fine to act if it goes too far in terms of the rules of the sport, I do think too much is made of it by the media as if it's a major thing and one of the main responsibilities of the footballers to be 'good examples'. Stop (resentfully) holding their wages and fame against them and judge them as competitive sports people, in the heat of battle - not 'role models' out there to make social statements and setting examples for kids.
I certainly think players feel 'free' to do it to such an extent because it's in the culture of the sport and there's an attitude of 'us v them' about players, managers, fans v refs. And that could be improved more on the more professional level of managers, players and refs.
However, I also think too much is made of it because of all this stuff being pushed in the media that football players are 'role models', and have a duty to act and speak in a way that positively influences kids, etc. When, really, they are just competitive sports stars playing in a highly emotional, contact sport, often with big money on the line. It's understandable that they show emotion and react to situations, like everyone just watching the game is, let alone those directly involved in it.
So while I think an eye should be kept on it, and the officials are fine to act if it goes too far in terms of the rules of the sport, I do think too much is made of it by the media as if it's a major thing and one of the main responsibilities of the footballers to be 'good examples'. Stop (resentfully) holding their wages and fame against them and judge them as competitive sports people, in the heat of battle - not 'role models' out there to make social statements and setting examples for kids.
An actual sensible decision?
I don't see how it's a sensible decision. If a standard isn't available then play match at a different stadium.
Dissent or kicking the ball away should be met with a stern warning and followed up with a yellow card. Do it once, warned, second time yellow card. Same should go for time wasting.
No, because it makes no sense to say it “maintains fairness”. If VAR improves decision making then it should be used in the three matches for which it can be used.
Middlesbrough don’t lose out if there is a stinking decision in the other match which VAR could have remedied. They (and Chelsea) just take the risk of an error in the match at Middlesbrough but that’s the same for both teams and therefore fair.
It’s a nonsensical decision, consistent with the usual lack of understanding of what the role of VAR actually is - to reduce the number of errors in decision making.
I hate these comments about rugby players! Genuinely despise them (the comments, not the rugby players).
Firstly, yes, I agree that rugby players are ‘better behaved’ than footballers but these are the same players who regularly punch, gouge, use other forms of violence against other players on the pitch.
They then follow this up with regular squaring up and grabbing each other by the lapels in a similar fashion to Casemiro when he got a red card.
Just stop comparing sports. It’s not needed
Is it me or do referees themselves seem to give red cards from initial challenges a lot less often than they used to? seems like they're defaulting to give yellows in all of these situations relying on VAR to correct them when its a red.
Yeah, pretty much agree. At the very least, say it won't be used in either leg of the Middlesbrough game to maintain consistency. But why should that effect the other match? It doesn't impact Middlesbrough or Chelsea, positively or negatively, whether it's used in the other semi final or not - and, as both of those grounds have the facilities to use it, then it's completely unnecessary to decide not to use it.
Especially as it's following on from the FA Cup weekend where that very 'used in some, not others' was deemed fine. Though there were the usual media complaints about it, so it's either a short term pandering to 'whoever shouts loudest', or a sign that they're now going to change their long term thinking about it (which will effect both competitions going forward). If it's just a one off thing, based on the two-legged format, then I've no idea why it's also being applied to the other semi final where using VAR isn't an issue.
If VAR actually did this I would agree.
Instead, current VAR just leads to different decisions being made, not necceserily the correct ones.
Agreed. A spur of the moment dissent should be tolerated - these are testostorone ridden young men with a winning mentality too big for their own ego - even pub players get in a rouse whenever a decision isn't given, or they feel something is wrongly given. Heck, I'm a farirly composed guy, but on a football pitch, that changes. If players don't shut up after the immediate idiotic behavior, then book them, but throwing your arms in a tantrum or throwing the ball straight to the ground and back up once, really shouldn't be a concern.
Also, when a player like Ødegaard is pissed off by the ref for being constantly fouled by the cretin McAllister, and not given blatant corner kicks or throw ins, or clear hand balls, then perhaps the ref should have a look in the mirror.
But surely that's not the thinking behind the FA's decision?
If they had no real faith in it, then they shouldn't be using it for the PL and many FA Cup games. And if it's for the 'fairness' angle, then why have they just allowed a mix and match in the FA Cup 3rd round?
Seems very inconsistent. Maybe the two-legged format is changing their thinking - but, even so, that should only effect both legs of the game involving Middlesbrough and Chelsea. What's it got to with dropping it for the Fulham - Liverpool match?
"I think he might be ok but you just can't tell in these situations"
Great commentator
The level of dissent shown in football is a disgrace and has been for a very long time. It isn’t tolerated in any other sport, sets a terrible example for kids and creates a hostile atmosphere towards referees at grassroots level, that can end up with them getting assaulted. So any effort to stamp it out is a good thing. They just need to be more consistent in how they penalise players.
Dissent in baseball is quite funny. They can do a degree of it, then get 'ejected' but can still stand around afterwards for a good 30 seconds or so calling the decisions horseshit and the umpire blind etc. Can get pretty animated. It's pretty much a tradition.
That's because football is such an imperfect, subjective game, riddled with inconsistency. Other sports are far more black and white, while the technology genuinely helps to clear things up. This obviously makes decisions a lot more difficult to accept in football.
I do think that's a big factor, yeah. And one that I think the governing bodies are happy to continue with (as reflected by their ever increasing number of complicated, subjective rules) as constant 'debate' about decisions is one of the main things that helps give Football so much space in the media. For that reason, I also think the media have a huge desire to see / help generate that debate - which is why they choose to focus so much on debating decisions while pretended how they'd 'love to be discussing the game, not the officials'. Well, do so! It's your bloody choice what your ever expanding number of pundits discuss!
I don't think that's true at all. You’re just making excuses for bad behaviour. If anything the rules are much more complicated and subjective in sports where there is little or no dissent (e.g. rugby) What those other sports have had from day one is a zero tolerance policy for dissent. If football is belatedly trying to adopt this same policy then that's definitely a good thing. But they've made life difficult for themselve by accepting so much terrible behaviour from footballers, going back such a long time.
Even this isn't officiated consistently in football. The new policy of issuing cards for dissent is, just like many of the laws, applied as and when they fancy it. It isn't good enough.